Pell appeal lost today

  • Thread starter Thread starter GiftofMercy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it probably not a good idea to invoke the term martyr when discussing a lost appeal of a convicted child molester. I mean given the climate we are in. It certainly doesnt fit the definition of martyr regardless of what you believe.
 
GiftofMercy said:
I pray this will not define the Catholic Church, either in Australia or globally.
Click to expand...
Nor should it define Australian justice in the Twenty-first Century, but that remains to be seen. The Church has seen this before.

I am of the belief that there is no way, ever, guilt can be know two decades later based on testimony, without solid physical evidence. I believe as a matter of law, such a conviction has to be unjust.
 
AlNg said:
I would take the stand and defend myself if I were innocent.
Click to expand...
Still in the background of the Australian justice system is the spectre of the conviction of Lindy Chamberlain for murdering her 9 week old daughter 38 years ago. Originally the case was a cut and dried case of a wild dog breaching a campsite and stealing ‘food’ (which the baby was to it). A scenario that happens all the time in those extreme settings. Unfortunately once Lindy began to represent their situation to media and the court, the public turned on her for no other reason that she was strange (and obviously guilty) and a devoted religious person (even back then in Australia Christians were on the nose).

You can never underestimate the fickleness of peoples opinions even in such dire cases.
 
40.png
Transcript of the letter Cardinal Pell wrote from prison, now appearing in social media Catholic News
In this letter Cardinal Pell tells how his faith is helping him in prison, a letter which has appeared in social media. He has appealed his conviction; soon we will learn if his conviction will be overturned or not.
Click to expand...
 
Judging by the actual facts of the case, as reported by all sorts of outlets, the conviction is a farce. That being said, maybe there is something that hasn’t been reported. I dunno.

What I do know is that persecution is inseparable from the life of the Church. We have always had it and always will. (and yes, Christians have done our share of persecuting as well).

Christ faced his persecutors with an eye towards remaining faithful, not towards exonerating himself.
 
Last edited:
If the conviction is a farce then you are defaming innocent jurors.
 
goout said:
Christ faced his persecutors with an eye towards remaining faithful, not towards exonerating himself.
Click to expand...
His case is a bit different to Jesus case in that if the conviction of an innocent person is justified to satisfy the general sins of the Australian Church, It changes the scope of the legal process in a dangerous way for everybody.
 
The problem could be systemic in the justice system. The standard of it being better to have ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison is not universal, especially when it comes to sex offenders. It is almost like we have reversed this “for the sake of the children” ostensibly, though that clearly has logic flaws. When statute of limitations were extended for one specific crime, then justice became questionable.
 
pnewton said:
The problem could be systemic in the justice system.
Click to expand...
Another thing here is that virtually all other convicted clergy have such a long list of accusers and have pleaded guilty straight up to avoid being further exposed by a trial. Crd Pell is unique in that there are no other accusers( except 2 non credible friends the police found in the sweep looking for propensity evidence) and he has made an adamant and unwaivering plea of not guilty. If he is truly guilty, we have to accept that this man who has been a visible, and outspoken bastion of orthodoxy in the Australian Church for more than 40 years, is a sociopathic liar about this particular incident that was never repeated either prior to of after that time. It would make him indeed the most unique of criminals.
 
Not necessarily. At most, you’re saying that they were duped by people clever enough to present a farce as a truth.

Can you honestly claim that you were never deceived by something which seemed absolutely right, and which later you discovered was absolutely false?
 
I’m just wondering if everyone is on board with mccarick being guilty?

Or anyone for that matter.

I think it is an uncharitable position at best to defend Pell by accusing and doubting the victim, the Jury, the judges, and the legal system of an entire modern western nation that uses the same base for justice as England and the USA.
 
A court has found him guilty, an appeal has found he is guilty. It is entirely possible he is guilty.
We cannot go back to the days where noone listened to, or accused victims of lying, or told them to keep quiet.
On a note about the reporter/writer whose book was suspended, and who has a book with more detail to be released once the entire process is over, she is a practising Catholic, whose children attend Catholic school,
 
Last edited:
So you don’t think it’s possible that any of the above ‘made a mistake’ in the case of Cardinal Pell?

I think it is an ‘appeal to authority’ to attempt to claim that the victim, jury, judges and legal system must be ‘right’ based on them 'using the same base for justice as England and the U.S.

You do know that both in England and the U.S. people have been accused, tried, and convicted unjustly. And that has nothing to do with the ‘veracity’ or the ability of anyone involved, necessarily, nor is it an uncharitable ‘defense’ of a person who IS convicted falsely.

So what do you suggest? If we think a person has been convicted wrongly, should we just ‘shut up and accept it’ because appealing or discussing, in a discussion forum, is perceived by some as 'uncharitable? Aren’t we allowed to state our opinions?
 
Last edited:
Your argument is that some people are wrongfully convicted and Pell was convicted so therefore he is innocent?

I cant engage that reasoning. I am rendered impotent.

But I do hope that one having these beliefs of using this logic in abuse cases in the Church do not have safe environment qualifications and positions that would require mandatory reporting.
 
For some this maybe an interesting read,

www.theamericanconservative.com

Cardinal Pell & The Mafia

Pell's reform efforts at the Vatican Bank threatened the 'Ndrangheta, which controls organized crime in Australia
www.theamericanconservative.com www.theamericanconservative.com
 
I do not think charity means we must be blind to justice, or ignore flaws in logic. McCarrick is a different subject, and the evidence against him is exponentially more. He like almost all sexual predators continued in his predation. With Pell, there is no claim of life long predation.
 
Emeraldlady said:
Still in the background of the Australian justice system is the spectre of the conviction of Lindy Chamberlain for murdering her 9 week old daughter 38 years ago. Originally the case was a cut and dried case of a wild dog breaching a campsite and stealing ‘food’ (which the baby was to it). A scenario that happens all the time in those extreme settings. Unfortunately once Lindy began to represent their situation to media and the court, the public turned on her for no other reason that she was strange (and obviously guilty) and a devoted religious person (even back then in Australia Christians were on the nose).

You can never underestimate the fickleness of peoples opinions even in such dire cases.
Click to expand...
Except the Pell case was never a “cut and dried case”. It was neck and neck. Yet he still didn’t testify under oath. If you are being accused of sexually abusing minors and it’s 50/50 if you will be convicted you better take the stand and defend yourself. Especially if you’re innocent.
 
Phatmass1 said:
If you are being accused of sexually abusing minors and it’s 50/50 if you will be convicted you better take the stand and defend yourself. Especially if you’re innocent.
Click to expand...
Absolutely Not. No lawyer would recommend that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top